EnclavedMicrostate在2022-09-05~2022-09-11的言论

2022-09-11 作者: EnclavedMicrostate 原文 #Reddit 的其它文章

780: Lilikoi Laboratory Lapses - Weekly Discussion Thread, September 5th, 2022, submitted on 2022-09-06 00:41:50+08:00.

—– 780.1 —–2022-09-07 08:36:46+08:00:

!With Calli, I don’t think there’s really a scenario where she does end up dropping it completely. A lot of her oeuvre is tied up in the Holo brand now, so graduating potentially means losing access to a huge chunk of her creative output. She’s also very much someone who enjoys streaming, so even if she ends up going full pivot to music, it’s not likely she’ll completely give up streaming and it seems like retaining the Calli persona would help.!<

—– 780.2 —–2022-09-07 08:37:51+08:00:

So… why not just fix it by transferring chats?

—– 780.3 —–2022-09-08 18:14:44+08:00:

I suspect that it’s because on some level it’s a PR pitch to outsiders.

781: Are there any actual evidences that the Chinese discovered America?, submitted on 2022-09-07 02:14:26+08:00.

—– 781.1 —–2022-09-07 08:16:08+08:00:

If he did indeed say it’s ‘heavily debated’ then I have to say I’m rather disappointed in Jay Foreman, as this notion is about as ‘heavily debated’ as the idea the Earth is flat. This claim originates exclusively from the late Gavin Menzies, whose work is not remotely credible and which also serves as the vehicle for a number of racist theories, including deeply offensive claims about the origins of the Maori. I discuss these issues in this answer.

782: Who are some prominent figures of history… whose parents were first cousins?, submitted on 2022-09-07 11:41:25+08:00.

—– 782.1 —–2022-09-07 15:20:55+08:00:

Please repost this question to the weekly “Short Answers” thread stickied to the top of the subreddit, which will be the best place to get an answer to this question; for that reason, we have removed your post here. Standalone questions are intended to be seeking detailed, comprehensive answers, and we ask that questions looking for a name, a number, a date or time, a location, the origin of a word, the first/last instance of a specific phenomenon, or a simple list of examples or facts be contained to that thread as they are more likely to receive an answer there. For more information on this rule, please see this Rules Roundtable.

Alternatively, if you didn’t mean to ask a question seeking a short answer or a list of examples, but have a more complex question in mind, feel free to repost a reworded question. Examples of questions appropriate for the ‘Short Answers’ thread would be “Who won the 1932 election?” or “What are some famous natural disasters from the past?”. Versions more appropriate as standalone questions would be “How did FDR win the 1932 election?”, or “In your area of expertise, how did people deal with natural disasters?” If you need some pointers, be sure to check out this Rules Roundtable on asking better questions.

Finally, don’t forget that there are many subreddits on Reddit aimed at answering your questions. Consider /r/AskHistory (which has lighter moderation but similar topic matter to /r/AskHistorians), /r/explainlikeimfive (which is specifically aimed at simple and easily digested answers), or /r/etymology (which focuses on the origins of words and phrases).

783: Have men really oppressed women throughout the entirety of history?, submitted on 2022-09-07 11:46:11+08:00.

—– 783.1 —–2022-09-07 15:20:59+08:00:

Apologies, but we have removed your question in its current form as it breaks our rules concerning the scope of questions. However, it might be that an altered version of your question would fit within our rules, and we encourage you to reword your question to fit the rule. While we do allow questions which ask about general topics without specific bounding by time or space, we do ask that they be clearly phrased and presented in a way that can be answered by an individual historian focusing on only one example which they can write about in good detail.

So for example, if you wanted to ask, “Have people always rebelled against health rules in pandemics?” we would remove the question. As phrased, it asks broadly about many places collectively. However if you ask “In the time and place you study, how did people rebel against health rules in a pandemic?” we would allow the question. As phrased, while still asking broadly, it does so in a way that clearly invites a given expert to write exclusively about their topic of focus! We encourage you to think about rewording your question to fit this rule, and thank you for your understanding. If you are unsure of how best to reshape your question to fit these requirements, please reach out to us for assistance.

784: Why did hitler blame Jewish community for Germany’s defeat in ww1?, submitted on 2022-09-07 13:05:29+08:00.

—– 784.1 —–2022-09-07 15:21:22+08:00:

It seems you are asking about the background and reasons of anti-Jewish and/or antisemitic sentiment throughout history. Posts of this type are common on the subreddit, so we have this reply which is intended as a general response that provides an overview of the history of antisemitic thought and action.

The essential point that needs to be emphasized: the reason for anti-Jewish hatred and persecution has absolutely nothing to do with things Jewish men and women did, said or thought. Religious and racial persecution is not the fault of the victim but of the persecutor and antisemitism, like all prejudices, is inherently irrational. Framing history in a manner that places the reason for racial hatred with its victims is a technique frequently employed by racists to justify their hateful ideology.

The reasons why Jews specifically were persecuted, expelled, and discriminated against throughout mainly European history can vary greatly depending on time and place, but there are overarching historical factors that can help us understand the historical persecution of Jews - mainly that they often were the only minority available to scapegoat.

Christian majority societies as early as the Roman empire had an often strained and complicated relationship with the Jewish population that lived within their borders. Christian leaders instituted a policy that simultaneously included grudging permissions for Jews to live in certain areas and practice their faith under certain circumstances but at the same time subjected them to discriminatory measures such as restrictions where they could live and what professions they could practice. The Christian Churches – Catholic, Orthodox, and later Protestant – also begrudgingly viewed the Jews as the people of the Old Testament but used their dominant roles in society to make the Jewish population the target of intense proselytization and other them further by preaching their fault for the death of Jesus.

This dynamic meant that Jews were the most easily recognizable and visible minority to point fingers at during a crisis. This can be best observed with the frequent accusations of “blood libel” – an anti-Semitic canard alleging that Jews murdered Christian children to use their blood in religious rituals – in situations where Christian children or adults disappeared, the communal panic immediately channeling itself as Jew-hatred with tragic results. Similarly, religious, ideological, and economic reasons were often interwoven in the expulsion of Jews to whom medieval rulers and kings owed a lot of money; in fact, one intersection of crisis-blaming and financial motive occurred during the Black Death, when local rulers were able to cynically blame Jews for the plague as an excuse for murdering and expelling them.

These processes also often took place within negotiations between social and political elites over state formation. One of the best examples is the expulsion of the Jewish population from Spain by the rulers of Castile and Aragon after the Reconquista in 1491. Expulsion and forcible conversions progressed toward an institutionalized suspicion towards so-called New Christians – Jews who’d recently converted– based on their “blood”. This was an unprecedented element in antisemitic attitudes that some scholars place within the context of Spanish rulers and nobility becoming engaged in a rather brutal state formation process. In order to define themselves, they chose to define and get rid of a group they painted as alien, foreign and different in a negative way – as the “other”. Once again Jews were the easily available minority.

Jews long remained in this position of only available religious minority, and over time they were often made very visible as such: discriminatory measures introduced very early on included being forced to wear certain hats and clothing, be part of humiliating rituals, pay onerous taxes, live in restricted areas of towns – ghettos – and be separated from the majority population. All this further increased the sense of “other-ness” that majority societies experienced toward the Jews. They were made into the other by such measures.

This continued with the advent of modernity, especially in the context of nationalism. The 19th century is marked by a huge shift in ways to explain the world, especially in regards to factors such as nationalism, race, and science. To break it down to the essentials: the French Revolution and its aftermath delegitimized previously established explanations for why the world was the way it was – a new paradigm of “rationalism” took hold. People would now seek to explain differences in social organizations and ways of living between the various peoples of the world with this new paradigm.

Out of this endeavor to explain why people were different soon emerged what we today understand as modern racism, meaning not just theories on why people are different but constructing a dichotomy of worth out of these differences.
A shift took place from a religious othering to one based more on nationality - and thereby, in the minds of many, on race. In the tradition of völkisch thought, as formulated by thinkers such as Gobineau and Houston Stewart Chamberlain, races as the main historical actors were seen as acting through the nation. Nations were their tool or outlet to take part in Social Darwinist competition between the races. The Jews were seen as a race without a nation - as their own race, which dates back to them being imperial subjects and older stereotypes of them as “the other” - and therefore acting internationally rather than nationally. Seen through this nationalistic lens, an individual Jew living in Germany, for example, was not seen as German but was seen as having no nation. For such Jews, this meant that the Jewish emancipation that Enlightenment brought provided unprecedented freedom and removed many of the barriers that they had previously experienced, the advent of scientific racism and volkisch thought meant that new barriers and prejudices simply replaced them.

Racist thinkers of the 19th century augmented these new barriers and prejudices with conspiratorial thinking. The best example for this antisemitic delusion are the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a fake political treatise produced by the Tsarist Secret Police at some point in 1904/05 which pretends to be the minutes of a meeting of the leaders of a Jewish world conspiracy discussing plans to get rid of all the world’s nations and take over the world. While the Protocols were quickly debunked as a forgery, they had a huge impact on many antisemitic and völkisch thinkers in Europe, including some whose writings were most likely read by the young Hitler.

The whole trope of the Jewish conspiracy as formulated by völkisch thought took on a whole new importance in the late 1910s, with the end of WWI, the Bolshevik revolution, and subsequent attempts at communist revolution in Germany and elsewhere. Jews during the 19th century had often embraced ideologies such as (classical) liberalism and communism, because they hoped these ideologies would propagate a world in which it didn’t matter whether you were a Jew or not. However, the idea of Jews being a driving force behind communism was clearly designed by Tsarist secret police and various racists in the Russian Empire as a way to discredit communism as an ideology. This trope of Jews being the main instigators behind communism and Bolshevism subsequently spread from the remnants of Tsarist Russia over the central powers all the way to Western Europe.

This delusion of an internationalist conspiracy would finally result in the Nazis’ Holocaust killing vast numbers of Jews and those made Jews by the Nazi’s racial laws. While this form of antisemitism lost some of its mass appeal in the years after 1945, forms of it still live on, mostly in the charge of conspiracy so central to the modern form of antisemitism: from instances such as the Moscow doctors’ trial, to prevalent discourses about Jews belonging to no nation, to discourses related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to the recent surges of antisemitic violence in various states – antisemitism didn’t disappear after the end of the Holocaust. Even the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the conspiratorial pamphlet debunked soon after it was written at the beginning of the 20th century, has been consistently in print throughout the world ever since.

Again, anti-Jewish persecution has never been caused by something the Jews did, said, or thought. It was and is caused by the hatred, delusions, and irrational prejudices harbored by those who carried out said persecution. After centuries of standing out due to religious and alleged racial difference, without defenders and prevented from defending themselves, Jews stood out as almost an ideal “other.” Whether the immediate cause at various points has been religious difference, conspiracy theory, ancestral memory of hatred, or simply obvious difference, Jews were and continue to be targeted by those who adhere to ideologies of hatred.

Further reading:

Amos Elon: The Pity of It All: A History of the Jews in Germany, 1743-1933. New York 2002.

Peter Pulzer: The rise of political anti-Semitism in Germany and Austria, Cambridge 1988.

Hadassa Ben-Itto: The Lie That Wouldn’t Die: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. London 2005.

Robert S. Wistrich: Antisemitism: The Longest Hatred. New York 1991.

785: Why are Jews historically hated?, submitted on 2022-09-07 14:40:51+08:00.

—– 785.1 —–2022-09-07 15:21:36+08:00:

It seems you are asking about the background and reasons of anti-Jewish and/or antisemitic sentiment throughout history. Posts of this type are common on the subreddit, so we have this reply which is intended as a general response that provides an overview of the history of antisemitic thought and action.

The essential point that needs to be emphasized: the reason for anti-Jewish hatred and persecution has absolutely nothing to do with things Jewish men and women did, said or thought. Religious and racial persecution is not the fault of the victim but of the persecutor and antisemitism, like all prejudices, is inherently irrational. Framing history in a manner that places the reason for racial hatred with its victims is a technique frequently employed by racists to justify their hateful ideology.

The reasons why Jews specifically were persecuted, expelled, and discriminated against throughout mainly European history can vary greatly depending on time and place, but there are overarching historical factors that can help us understand the historical persecution of Jews - mainly that they often were the only minority available to scapegoat.

Christian majority societies as early as the Roman empire had an often strained and complicated relationship with the Jewish population that lived within their borders. Christian leaders instituted a policy that simultaneously included grudging permissions for Jews to live in certain areas and practice their faith under certain circumstances but at the same time subjected them to discriminatory measures such as restrictions where they could live and what professions they could practice. The Christian Churches – Catholic, Orthodox, and later Protestant – also begrudgingly viewed the Jews as the people of the Old Testament but used their dominant roles in society to make the Jewish population the target of intense proselytization and other them further by preaching their fault for the death of Jesus.

This dynamic meant that Jews were the most easily recognizable and visible minority to point fingers at during a crisis. This can be best observed with the frequent accusations of “blood libel” – an anti-Semitic canard alleging that Jews murdered Christian children to use their blood in religious rituals – in situations where Christian children or adults disappeared, the communal panic immediately channeling itself as Jew-hatred with tragic results. Similarly, religious, ideological, and economic reasons were often interwoven in the expulsion of Jews to whom medieval rulers and kings owed a lot of money; in fact, one intersection of crisis-blaming and financial motive occurred during the Black Death, when local rulers were able to cynically blame Jews for the plague as an excuse for murdering and expelling them.

These processes also often took place within negotiations between social and political elites over state formation. One of the best examples is the expulsion of the Jewish population from Spain by the rulers of Castile and Aragon after the Reconquista in 1491. Expulsion and forcible conversions progressed toward an institutionalized suspicion towards so-called New Christians – Jews who’d recently converted– based on their “blood”. This was an unprecedented element in antisemitic attitudes that some scholars place within the context of Spanish rulers and nobility becoming engaged in a rather brutal state formation process. In order to define themselves, they chose to define and get rid of a group they painted as alien, foreign and different in a negative way – as the “other”. Once again Jews were the easily available minority.

Jews long remained in this position of only available religious minority, and over time they were often made very visible as such: discriminatory measures introduced very early on included being forced to wear certain hats and clothing, be part of humiliating rituals, pay onerous taxes, live in restricted areas of towns – ghettos – and be separated from the majority population. All this further increased the sense of “other-ness” that majority societies experienced toward the Jews. They were made into the other by such measures.

This continued with the advent of modernity, especially in the context of nationalism. The 19th century is marked by a huge shift in ways to explain the world, especially in regards to factors such as nationalism, race, and science. To break it down to the essentials: the French Revolution and its aftermath delegitimized previously established explanations for why the world was the way it was – a new paradigm of “rationalism” took hold. People would now seek to explain differences in social organizations and ways of living between the various peoples of the world with this new paradigm.

Out of this endeavor to explain why people were different soon emerged what we today understand as modern racism, meaning not just theories on why people are different but constructing a dichotomy of worth out of these differences.
A shift took place from a religious othering to one based more on nationality - and thereby, in the minds of many, on race. In the tradition of völkisch thought, as formulated by thinkers such as Gobineau and Houston Stewart Chamberlain, races as the main historical actors were seen as acting through the nation. Nations were their tool or outlet to take part in Social Darwinist competition between the races. The Jews were seen as a race without a nation - as their own race, which dates back to them being imperial subjects and older stereotypes of them as “the other” - and therefore acting internationally rather than nationally. Seen through this nationalistic lens, an individual Jew living in Germany, for example, was not seen as German but was seen as having no nation. For such Jews, this meant that the Jewish emancipation that Enlightenment brought provided unprecedented freedom and removed many of the barriers that they had previously experienced, the advent of scientific racism and volkisch thought meant that new barriers and prejudices simply replaced them.

Racist thinkers of the 19th century augmented these new barriers and prejudices with conspiratorial thinking. The best example for this antisemitic delusion are the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a fake political treatise produced by the Tsarist Secret Police at some point in 1904/05 which pretends to be the minutes of a meeting of the leaders of a Jewish world conspiracy discussing plans to get rid of all the world’s nations and take over the world. While the Protocols were quickly debunked as a forgery, they had a huge impact on many antisemitic and völkisch thinkers in Europe, including some whose writings were most likely read by the young Hitler.

The whole trope of the Jewish conspiracy as formulated by völkisch thought took on a whole new importance in the late 1910s, with the end of WWI, the Bolshevik revolution, and subsequent attempts at communist revolution in Germany and elsewhere. Jews during the 19th century had often embraced ideologies such as (classical) liberalism and communism, because they hoped these ideologies would propagate a world in which it didn’t matter whether you were a Jew or not. However, the idea of Jews being a driving force behind communism was clearly designed by Tsarist secret police and various racists in the Russian Empire as a way to discredit communism as an ideology. This trope of Jews being the main instigators behind communism and Bolshevism subsequently spread from the remnants of Tsarist Russia over the central powers all the way to Western Europe.

This delusion of an internationalist conspiracy would finally result in the Nazis’ Holocaust killing vast numbers of Jews and those made Jews by the Nazi’s racial laws. While this form of antisemitism lost some of its mass appeal in the years after 1945, forms of it still live on, mostly in the charge of conspiracy so central to the modern form of antisemitism: from instances such as the Moscow doctors’ trial, to prevalent discourses about Jews belonging to no nation, to discourses related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to the recent surges of antisemitic violence in various states – antisemitism didn’t disappear after the end of the Holocaust. Even the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the conspiratorial pamphlet debunked soon after it was written at the beginning of the 20th century, has been consistently in print throughout the world ever since.

Again, anti-Jewish persecution has never been caused by something the Jews did, said, or thought. It was and is caused by the hatred, delusions, and irrational prejudices harbored by those who carried out said persecution. After centuries of standing out due to religious and alleged racial difference, without defenders and prevented from defending themselves, Jews stood out as almost an ideal “other.” Whether the immediate cause at various points has been religious difference, conspiracy theory, ancestral memory of hatred, or simply obvious difference, Jews were and continue to be targeted by those who adhere to ideologies of hatred.

Further reading:

Amos Elon: The Pity of It All: A History of the Jews in Germany, 1743-1933. New York 2002.

Peter Pulzer: The rise of political anti-Semitism in Germany and Austria, Cambridge 1988.

Hadassa Ben-Itto: The Lie That Wouldn’t Die: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. London 2005.

Robert S. Wistrich: Antisemitism: The Longest Hatred. New York 1991.

786: When were Paperboy caps invented?, submitted on 2022-09-07 14:52:18+08:00.

—– 786.1 —–2022-09-07 15:21:53+08:00:

Please repost this question to the weekly “Short Answers” thread stickied to the top of the subreddit, which will be the best place to get an answer to this question; for that reason, we have removed your post here. Standalone questions are intended to be seeking detailed, comprehensive answers, and we ask that questions looking for a name, a number, a date or time, a location, the origin of a word, the first/last instance of a specific phenomenon, or a simple list of examples or facts be contained to that thread as they are more likely to receive an answer there. For more information on this rule, please see this Rules Roundtable.

Alternatively, if you didn’t mean to ask a question seeking a short answer or a list of examples, but have a more complex question in mind, feel free to repost a reworded question. Examples of questions appropriate for the ‘Short Answers’ thread would be “Who won the 1932 election?” or “What are some famous natural disasters from the past?”. Versions more appropriate as standalone questions would be “How did FDR win the 1932 election?”, or “In your area of expertise, how did people deal with natural disasters?” If you need some pointers, be sure to check out this Rules Roundtable on asking better questions.

Finally, don’t forget that there are many subreddits on Reddit aimed at answering your questions. Consider /r/AskHistory (which has lighter moderation but similar topic matter to /r/AskHistorians), /r/explainlikeimfive (which is specifically aimed at simple and easily digested answers), or /r/etymology (which focuses on the origins of words and phrases).

787: Books to Read instead of Jared Diamond’s Books?, submitted on 2022-09-08 07:26:31+08:00.

—– 787.1 —–2022-09-08 14:11:09+08:00:

This would be better suited to its own top-level question.

788: Was Franklin D. Roosevelt a Authoritarian or Libertarianism President?, submitted on 2022-09-08 11:09:21+08:00.

—– 788.1 —–2022-09-08 13:21:09+08:00:

Hi there - unfortunately we have had to remove your question, because /r/AskHistorians isn’t here to do your homework for you. However, our rules DO permit people to ask for help with their homework, so long as they are seeking clarification or resources, rather than the answer itself.

If you have indeed asked a homework question, you should consider resubmitting a question more focused on finding resources and seeking clarification on confusing issues: tell us what you’ve researched so far, what resources you’ve consulted, and what you’ve learned, and we are more likely to approve your question. Please see this Rules Roundtable thread for more information on what makes for the kind of homework question we’d approve. Additionally, if you’re not sure where to start in terms of finding and understanding sources in general, we have a six-part series, “Finding and Understanding Sources”, which has a wealth of information that may be useful for finding and understanding information for your essay. Finally, other subreddits are likely to be more suitable for help with homework - try looking for help at /r/HomeworkHelp.

Alternatively, if you are not a student and are not doing homework, we have removed your question because it resembled a homework question. It may resemble a common essay question from a prominent history syllabus or may be worded in a broad, open-ended way that feels like the kind of essay question that a professor would set. Professors often word essay questions in order to provide the student with a platform to show how much they understand a topic, and these questions are typically broader and more interested in interpretations and delineating between historical theories than the average /r/AskHistorians question. If your non-homework question was incorrectly removed for this reason, we will be happy to approve your question if you wait for 7 days and then ask a less open-ended question on the same topic.

789: When did Europeans stop building castles? When was the last defensive castle made?, submitted on 2022-09-09 20:03:18+08:00.

—– 789.1 —–2022-09-10 01:36:05+08:00:

Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, we have had to remove it due to violations of subreddit’s rules about answers needing to reflect current scholarship. While we appreciate the effort you have put into this comment, there are nevertheless significant errors, misunderstandings, or omissions of the topic at hand which necessitated its removal.

We understand this can be discouraging, but we would also encourage you to consult this Rules Roundtable to better understand how the mod team evaluates answers on the sub. If you are interested in feedback on improving future contributions, please feel free to reach out to us via modmail. Thank you for your understanding.

—– 789.2 —–2022-09-10 02:22:52+08:00:

Sorry, but we have had to remove your comment as we do not allow answers that consist primarily of links or block quotations from sources. This subreddit is intended as a space not merely to get an answer in and of itself as with other history subs, but for users with deep knowledge and understanding of it to share that in their responses. While relevant sources are a key building block for such an answer, they need to be adequately contextualized and we need to see that you have your own independent knowledge of the topic.

If you believe you are able to use this source as part of an in-depth and comprehensive answer, we would encourage you to consider revising to do so, and you can find further guidance on what is expected of an answer here by consulting this Rules Roundtable which discusses how we evaluate responses.

790: Question about the Manchu population before 1644, submitted on 2022-09-10 13:26:14+08:00.

—– 790.1 —–2022-09-10 20:08:10+08:00:

It’s an interesting question. I’d suggest a read of the relevant scholarship, of which thankfully one of the most relevant items is available easily online: Elliott, Campbell, and Lee’s ‘A Demographic estimate of the population of the Qing eight banners’ (2016). The Manchu population was indeed quite small, but we ought to place this in the context of the late Ming, when large parts of southern Manchuria, the best suited for agriculture with available technology, were effectively monopolised by Han colonists. We also ought to consider that while the ‘Jurchens’ at the foundation of the Jin were large in number, these large tribal names often obscure quite complicated confederations. For their part, the Manchus were not totally exclusionary in terms of who was defined as ‘Manchu’, but several Jurchen tribes, particularly to the north, were excluded, so we ought to expect them to have encompassed a smaller part of an already-smaller Jurchen population. So 400,000 ‘core’ Manchus is not an utterly absurd suggestion, and it fits the data we have.

791: Why did Japan establish multiple puppet states during its various incursions into China?, submitted on 2022-09-10 18:17:29+08:00.

—– 791.1 —–2022-09-10 23:40:22+08:00:

3? More like 4! More might be said but I discuss the formation of the Japanese collaborator regimes in China proper in this answer, and their relationship to Manchukuo in this one.

To give a somewhat potted summary of the key takeaways, especially from the latter answer, Manchukuo and Mengkukuo were not conceived of as Japanese puppet regimes in China, but rather as breakaway regions under effective Japanese suzerainty. Japan’s official foreign policy line on Manchukuo – insofar as there ever was one – ultimately sought to assert that it was legitimate as an independent state from China, as opposed to a Japanese foothold in China, derived at first from claims to it being a Manchu nation-state and latterly from claims to it being a state for a multinational ‘Manchurian’ identity. Neither was particularly convincing on the international stage, mind you, but it is worth suggesting that the former, at least, was not entirely spun from whole cloth – that most Manchus resided outside Manchuria and that Manchuria was mostly non-Manchu doesn’t by default mean that the Manchus might not have been entitled to statehood had they desired it, and arguably Japan’s foreign policy served to poison the well for that particular hope, had it ever been entertained seriously.

—– 791.2 —–2022-09-11 01:50:36+08:00:

Just to preface, my familiarity is not really with interwar Japanese politics. But, to be frank ‘annexation’ would not really have entailed many benefits, while coming at substantially greater risk. The civilian government had not supported the invasion of Manchuria in the first place, so the military running it as a protectorate made more sense from their perspective. Globally, an overt Japanese annexation of Manchuria would have been seen as a far greater act of aggression than a claimed liberation of the Manchus. The notion that Japan could simply annex Manchuria without one or more of the USSR, USA, and UK at least raising serious objections is laughable.

We also ought to consider the line between ‘annexation’ and the establishment of a puppet state to be far less rigid than something like Hearts of Iron IV’s depiction. Direct Japanese military rule would not have inherently given Japan more long-term control over Manchurian resources than a nominally-but-not-actually-particularly autonomous collaboration government.

—– 791.3 —–2022-09-11 01:59:38+08:00:

It was, but at the very least the theoretical possibility existed that it would be recognised. Annexing the territory off the bat would give Japan none of the plausible deniability that it might claim via the puppet regime. Moreover, the invasion was (retrospectively) justified as a liberation of the Manchus; this could not be reconciled with overt annexation on the international stage. And again, it is very much unclear that annexation somehow would have been responded to with merely the mild disapproval that the Manchukuo project received, as opposed to more overt sanctions or even hostility.

—– 791.4 —–2022-09-11 10:33:35+08:00:

No, it’s because Japan’s ostensible position was that the Republic of China was not inherently entitled to inherit the Inner Asian territories of the Qing Empire. To say this again, Japan’s official line was that Manchukuo and Mengkukuo were breakaway states and not actually part of China. When Japan invaded in 1937 and began setting up collaborator governments, it therefore was not going to hand over Chinese territory to its ‘Manchurian’ and ‘Mongolian’ puppets, but would instead set up equivalents in China itself.

792: Why did the British 95th Rifles wear green during the Napoleonic Wars?, submitted on 2022-09-10 19:03:34+08:00.

—– 792.1 —–2022-09-10 23:00:23+08:00:

I will be the first to admit here that British military history and uniformology is far from my principal field, but as someone who has at one point painted up a unit of 95th Rifles and is going to do so again relatively soon, the question spoke to me enough that I went and did some digging. Now, from what I can find, there was no official statement anywhere for why the Experimental Corps of Rifles, latterly christened the 95th Regiment of Foot, were issued with green jackets and trousers. However, given the doctrinal inspirations behind the corps, there does seem to be a reasonable set of inferences to be made about their uniform as well.

The English Military Library for February 1801 includes an account of the formation of the Rifle Corps which notes two principal influences behind its formation under Colonel Coote Manningham and Lt. Colonel William Stewart: the continued maintenance of rifle-armed Jäger units in European armies, including the Austrian, Prussian, and Russian (but notably not the French); and the earlier experience of fighting both with and against rifle-armed troops in North America, with American and Hessian skirmishers using rifled arms. In many continental European armies, especially German ones, there was a great deal of precedent for the Jäger to have uniforms of a different, less conspicuous colour than their line counterparts – Austrian Jäger wore grey while the line wore white, while in the Prussian and Hessian armies, blue-wearing line troops were screened by green-wearing Jäger. While, to stress again, the explicit inspiration was not overtly stated in any document I know of, the most reasonable explanation is that the uniform mandated by Manningham was essentially modelled on north German precedents. An explanation along these lines – though suggesting a somewhat different inspiration – is offered by Willoughby Verner in his 1912 History & Campaigns of the Rifle Brigade, which notes that Stewart had been an observer on Suvorov’s campaign in Italy and Switzerland during the War of the Second Coalition in 1799, and would thus have seen grey-jacketed Tyrolean Jäger and green-jacketed Russian Jäger (although to be sure, Russian line troops also wore green) in action.

What this then does, however, is push back the question one step to whether or not the German states were thinking of camouflage when they kitted out their riflemen in green, and unfortunately the well dried up for me on that count. It is the sort of explanation that seems plausible from pure instinct and might explain why green was adopted by multiple German states, why Russia didn’t switch its Jägers from green to a different colour, and also why Austria went for grey (also a reasonably concealing colour). But as it stands plausibility is all I can offer on this count.

I would, however, note a significant detail in relation to another aspect of the Rifle Corps’ equipment, and that was their rifles. As specified in the original regulations for their dress and equipment, rifle barrels were to be browned – that is, lightly oxidised on the surface (this was done by soaking the barrel in brine and allowing the surface to tarnish). Browning of both rifle and musket barrels would, by the later stages of the Napoleonic wars, be relatively commonplace for British light regiments, with the obvious function being that you would be less likely to be given away by a glint of sunlight reflecting off your gun, and it would also simply be less conspicuous against earth and foliage. Given that this minor camouflaging was also done for red-coated light infantry later on, it’s probably fair to suggest that concealment was also a consideration behind the green uniforms of the Rifles back in 1800.

We can also look at precedents from within recent British military practice. Light infantry had been especially important in Britain’s wars in continental North America in the 18th century, and newly-raised forces would often be expected to wear green (whereas the regular army’s light troops generally retained red). Rogers’ Rangers in the Seven Years War (aka French and Indian War) were supposed to wear green jackets, while green jackets were also issued to the Queen’s Rangers during the American War of Independence. Granted, green was also used for the Royal Regiment of New York, a Loyalist line unit. But what it does suggest is that there was plenty of precedent within then-recent British military history of issuing green uniforms to specialist light infantry units. In this regard the Rifles were arguably not really a departure from the examples set by Ranger units in North American campaigns.

As for the claim that George III liked the colour green, while there is apparently a common story that George was behind St Patrick coming to be associated with green rather than blue, I can find no evidence that he was personally involved in the selection of the Rifles’ uniforms. With regards to officers’ proclivities in uniforms, it is worth noting that in general, uniforms were pretty uniform by this stage, and it was largely the quality of manufacture and not the basic appearance of a given regiment or battalion’s uniforms over which a commanding officer would have influence. Basically only facing colours (that is to say cuffs, collars, and shoulder straps) could vary at the regimental level. In that regard the rather bold green-and-black of the Rifles does reflect a particularly stark departure, but as noted above, there were both European and British precedents for garbing light infantry specialists, and particularly riflemen, in green.

As a further coda, it is interesting that the first campaign of the Rifle Corps would in fact be in Spain, but during the failed Ferrol Expedition in August 1800 rather than the Peninsular War that began in 1808. Now, it is true that dark green is not necessarily the most intuitive colour for a long campaign in Iberia, but the 95th was not necessarily confined to any one theatre long term – and indeed it was only in Spain for a matter of two days in 1800. The Rifles went on to fight in the Spanish Viceroyalty of the Rio Plata in 1806 and went on the Danish expedition of 1807 before heading to Spain, and parts of the newly-raised 3rd Battalion were sent off to North America in 1814 during the closing stages of the War of 1812. While green might not have been the ideal uniform for Iberia, it was presumably deemed a good choice for a force that could theoretically end up anywhere.

793: Green Kronii And Blue Fauna, submitted on 2022-09-11 15:57:57+08:00.

—– 793.1 —–2022-09-11 19:24:53+08:00:

Shego and not-Suisei.

794: [Hobby Scuffles] Week of September 12, 2022, submitted on 2022-09-11 23:00:15+08:00.

—– 794.1 —–2022-09-17 01:56:49+08:00:

Abdicated, not died. Let’s wait a couple years and see.

—– 794.2 —–2022-09-17 02:00:10+08:00:

Having watched the video in question, my read was that he wasn’t saying that anyone who doesn’t like X cancelled manga was too young and immature to handle moral complexity, but rather that the nature of the stories in question didn’t gel well with WSJ’s intended demographic, which tends towards younger, male readers in Japan.

文章版权归原作者所有。
二维码分享本站